In previous classes we had discussed the concepts surrounding the Internet as a community, and came to the conclusion that the Internet and digital technologies instead function as a network. In this reading, we began to examine Manuel Castell’s theory of the “network society”. This marks a shift in the way the current economy and society as a whole operates structurally. The shift has been described as one from “industrialism” to “informationalism”, or a movement from an emphasis on the production of goods to the production of knowledge. The “network” is largely about the communication of information, and digital technologies greatly aid in the ease and speed of this transfer. Yet, his was not the first theory used to describe or explain an “information society”, or the society of the digital age. Castell’s theory of a networked society draws from numerous previous theories developed throughout the past few decades that attempt to explain the economic, cultural and structural transition from any medium to the next—in this case the “electronic”/industrial/modern era to the current digital or potentially “post-modern” era.
The capitalist economy has been observed by numerous theorists to cycle through periods of prosperity and decline. In the long-wave theory these cycles are divided into four phases—that of expansion, peak, first adjustment and plateau, and panic and decline. Personally, I felt I could relate these cycles very easily to the occurrences of the recent recession. However, this original theory did not give a satisfying explanation for why capitalism cycled this way. Schumpeter made the observation that innovation and entrepreneurialism was essential for this cycling to occur. This development of new ideas and new technologies followed a system of “creative destruction”, where these technological and cultural shifts would continually destroy and rebuild the capitalist system. Though neither of these theories are accepted as completely valid, it is important to note the critical significance of ideas and knowledge in driving capitalism.
As we have seen with the invention of digital technologies, society has been hurt and helped in a variety of ways by these inventions, and in some ways that have yet to be fully understood. Nonetheless the major change between pre- and post-digital era can be seen in the change from mass production of tangible goods or a manufacturing-based economy to an economy based on information industries and the wealth of knowledge or intangible goods. Though this is not post-industrialism in the sense that is not completely a shift from manufacturing-based to service-based economy, it still exhibits some of these characteristics. However, post-industrialism’s prediction of the rise of the professional has actually yielded the opposite—the digital age shows the rise of the amateur or the mass amateurization of society. Also, the new economy does not necessary spotlight the individual as suggested in post-industrialism; it instead allows for a focus on the individual and the community. Specifically, the actual change in recent years is more similar to a shift from Fordism to post-Fordism. Fordism as a concept focused on the production process as one based in efficiency, discipline, standardization, repetition and hierarchal management. Post-Fordism, on the other hand, attempted to describe the situation after counter-cultures rejected the “mass society” model. This focused on flexibility, specialization, decentralization, globalization and training/knowledge. We can see these “decentralized networks of team work” in the job market of today’s society, and we increasingly see a trend of fragmentation parallel to concepts of post-Fordism.
However, is this current networked society really a rejuvenation of capitalism (59)? Is the digital age and information age a result of economic crisis and a restructuring of the economy and society into a new capitalist system? Miller believes this to be true. I, on the other hand, believe this may not be entirely true. In our recent readings, we considered the idea that the digital age could present a new socialism. Still, I see the capitalist potential of this new society, and this is why I believe the future will have to tell which direction the structure leans toward. The information age and digital technologies have created a commodification of knowledge, which would make information the currency of the contemporary capitalist system. We see this in how our personal information and “privacy” is sold as an intangible good to advertisers and corporations, and this does correspond with capitalism. The decentralization that occurs does foster a free market and bolster ideas of capitalism, yet it also breaks down certain hierarchies and closes gaps of disparity. This shift has distributed power, which can either give opportunity to the individual or spread the power to everyone rather than having them work for a scarce amount of power in a free market setting. The “networked society” emphasizes sharing and community rather than solely individual capital gain, and there as not as much “competition” seen in web culture as there would be in a free market. This may be due to the lessening of scarcity found in a digital society, and therein lies the problem. How does a capitalist system based on the competition over a set amount of resources function in an era where this scarcity may no longer exist?
Consequently, the new economic and structural system of the future may be a hybrid system, perhaps some new concept of social-capitalism? Societal systems before the digital and information age revolved around concepts of scarcity, but the world of today is moving toward “weightless” or intangible/virtual goods and services—ones focused on the sharing or communication of knowledge or information. Therefore, in a society based on knowledge and information as wealth and power, innovation is key. As such, are current intellectual property laws hurting or harming this new social-capitalist system? If innovation is “the lifeblood of an information economy”, are the laws of today starving this system? It is, of course, important to protect creators and certain levels of invention, yet if we are to continue to distribute power it is important we do not get sucked into a structure following “information feudalism”. For example, Brazil was having serious medical issues with AIDS patients, but the United States had a very expensive patent on the medicine they needed. The Brazilian government made the decision to “steal” this “intellectual property” to help the Brazilian population and sell the medicine at a more affordable price. However, the US medical company fought back, claiming an infringement on their ideas and property. Who is right and wrong in this situation? In the new digital information age, it is important to find a way to protect and enhance both the individual and the greater community, and this is where the balance between socialism and capitalism is essential.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
